YOu've opened up a can of worms in your response but I'll take on a couple for starters. First and foremost, there is NEVER a candidate who'll you will agree with 100%. That's dreamland. You don't even agree with your wife half the time, why on earth would you expect total agreement with a stranger???? Not realistic. By your own words I can extrapolate then that you vote for no one, ever, because you can't possibly agree with every platform a KErry or a Bush or a Nader offers. Impossible. I think I've made my case. NExt, you equate "undecided voters" with "thinking" or the highly thoughtful. Why? Most of the undecideds I've ever met are wishy-washy, soft, average IQ-at-best, and quite amazingly...UNINFORMED. They aren't anything like what you proport them to be. It doesn't take an M.I.T. grad to figure out what both candidates stand for...THE ARE AS OPPOSITE AS ANY TWO CANDIDATES I'VE EVER WITNESSED! Again, I must ask the question: "If these undecideds are so thoughtful and guarded with their vote, why haven't the made up their minds with all the information available?" While I'm here I might as well take on your third arguement about there being more than two candidates. Not really. Nader will garner 1% tops, that's all. You can label him a "choice" if that makes you feel better, but there's no substance in a 1% candidate. It does America as a whole no good and will be forgotten soon afterwards. History will barely remember him. Bush or Kerry will be the next PResident. That's reality. Any other choice is a complete waste of time to what actually happens November 2nd. It sounds good in theory to say that's there is more than two candidates...but really, can anyone actually be proud of voting for a Ralph Nader? Did it make you seem smarter to your friends when you said out loud, "Hey, I voted for Ross Perot!" I've got a pal who said that once, and trust me on this...he's a moron.